Peter is in the Foresthttps://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com
A place to look into the forests of the world, the heart, and the mind.Tue, 15 Aug 2017 03:33:50 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/64943c3c553840a8b869fe90fa07bb01?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngPeter is in the Foresthttps://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com
Abraham Lincoln’s consolation to Mrs. Heyerhttps://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/abraham-lincolns-consolation-to-mrs-heyer/
https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/abraham-lincolns-consolation-to-mrs-heyer/#respondTue, 15 Aug 2017 00:41:26 +0000http://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/?p=9416More Abraham Lincoln’s consolation to Mrs. Heyer]]>Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 13, 2017.

Dear Madam,–

I have just been notified by the findings of the Justice Department and a statement of the Attorney General that you are the mother of a daughter who joined men and women, black and white, who gloriously marched for the equality and dignity of their brothers and sisters.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic and all free people she died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

]]>https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/abraham-lincolns-consolation-to-mrs-heyer/feed/0peterisintheforestIn Ferguson Township, we stand for justice & love.https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/in-ferguson-township-we-stand-for-justice-love/
https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/in-ferguson-township-we-stand-for-justice-love/#respondTue, 15 Aug 2017 00:25:16 +0000http://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/?p=9378More In Ferguson Township, we stand for justice & love.]]>I was appalled by the alleged “Unite the Right” gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia. What organizers claimed was an event to bring people together about white plight, was a thinly veiled threat against all who disagree with them. It didn’t take long for that veil to be pulled away and their true colors to show.

Like many others, I believe wholeheartedly in free speech. At times, I would say I’m nearly a First Amendment fundamentalist. But free speech requires responsibility. And free assembly requires temperance. The would-be avengers of the alleged oppression of white men donning assault rifles and chanting racist slogans clearly want to dominate the rest of us while they get special free passes. They are not welcome in Ferguson Township as far as I and many others are concerned.

Last weekend, a community was plunged into hateful turmoil. I recognize the deep history of slavery and the illegitimate Civil War that took root in Charlottesville. I also see that it was coupled to the most enlightened ideals that founded this county and gave us free and fair education and the belief that all men–and eventually women–are created equal. All people are owed the dignity and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not just disgruntled white men.

Every person should be disturbed by the malice that reigns in some people’s minds. They formed a mob that turned a man in a car into a weapon. He became the American equivalent of the jihadists that the so-called “alt-right” decry. They have tried to claim that immigrants, refugees, and Muslims are savages and terrorists only. But these men, bent on race wars, are the lighter fluid and the match in a hoped-for clash of civilizations. Hellbent on identity politics, they seek to rip us asunder from within. We won’t let them.

Our deepest sympathies go out to the people who were brutalized and attacked. Heather Heyer was killed for no reason other than her commitment to loving her neighbor as herself. She joins martyrs who have given their lives to bring blacks and whites together and to heal our nation’s racist history. Though tragic, their lives can make each of us better. They must.

Here in central Pennsylvania, we are blessed with a tight-knit community. But do we know our neighbors? Do we love them as ourselves? Do we look in the mirror, name our own problems, and resolve to fight for good? Do we confront bigotry at work, at church, at school, and down on the corner? I hope so. I know that I have and always will. I know that we on Ferguson Township’s board of supervisors believe that we are a community that welcomes all no matter your color, your creed, sexual orientation, or nation of origin.

You are welcome here because in Ferguson Township, we stand for justice & love.

]]>https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/in-ferguson-township-we-stand-for-justice-love/feed/0peterisintheforest#FireBannon. Now.https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/firebannon-now/
https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/firebannon-now/#respondMon, 14 Aug 2017 23:29:53 +0000http://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/?p=9368]]>White supremacists have no place in the governance of our country.

Thank you for your service to Penn State University, our Commonwealth’s storied land grant university. I am a proud son of Penn State faculty and staff, an alumni, and an employee of Penn State[1]. As a servant myself, I appreciate the time you take to make Penn State the best university it can be.

Today, however, I write to you as a Ferguson Township supervisor. Though I am the vice chair of the board, none of my statements should be read as a reflection of the board’s will, just as one supervisor. As you well know, over the last few years, residents of Ferguson Township and the Centre Region have become upset about Penn State’s sale of about 40 acres of land for development of student housing by the Toll Brothers. That land is located in Ferguson Township off of Whitehall Road. It is cherished for its view, for its agricultural productivity, and as its current edge of the regional growth boundary. Citizens and I hope to keep it undeveloped.

Before going further, let me say that I am not interested in attacking any of the actors involved in previous decisions. I clearly do not agree with their decisions and believe that they are not viable ways to keep going. We need to chart a new course.

In recent weeks, citizens have made a specific request that Penn State do a land swap. Penn State staff in Finance and Business, the Office of Government Relations, and a representative of the Toll Brothers met with citizens as recently as Wednesday August 2, 2017 to discuss the matter. Having spoken to the citizens involved, I can say they were heartened. Knowing the Penn State staff present, I share their optimism. I sincerely hope that Penn State can work with the Toll Brothers to relocate this project to a place that infills nearer to the university, avoids the aesthetic and conservation problems on the Whitehall Road site, and brings vitality to its neighbors. If such a location can be found—which I think is possible knowing the sites—we could all realize common goals.

If a decision to approve a land swap comes to the Board of Trustees, I ask that they approve it. Penn State has a great deal to gain for its image and for alignment with regional and international strategic goals. I needn’t remind this body of the spate of scandals that have plagued Penn State for years. The “No Tolls” campaign has been yet another scandal that creates needless rancor and distrust. Penn State could rejuvenate its local reputation immensely by doing a land swap.

Additionally, Penn State’s latest Strategic Plan mentions sustainability a number of times. In Ferguson Township, sustainability is important to us. We are a certified Sustainable Pennsylvania Gold community, have a progressive agricultural easement program, and are pursuing among the most ambitious climate action plans and sourcewater protection overlays in the Commonwealth. From my point of view, we would welcome more sustainable developments coming from university changes.

Looking at the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, I note that Goal 11 looks “to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” Their sub goals 2 through 4 require that cities “provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport,” that they “enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management,” and that they “strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.” The proposed Cottages development violates the spirit of these goals, goals that the United States has signed onto as of 2015. As a leading global university with remarkable design faculty, it would be great to see the spirit of Goal 11 come alive through cooperation among developers, Penn State, and our municipalities.

It is my firm belief that by listening to our citizens, a different development in a better location can do us all a great deal of good. My constituents elected me to advocate for them and I happily do it. I hope that the Penn State Board of Trustees hears them and will work to assist what could truly be a better plan for Penn State, for the Toll Brothers, for Ferguson’s and the Centre Region’s citizens, and for our future. If there is anything that I can do to be of help, please do not hesitate to ask.

All the best,

Peter Dawson Buckland

Ferguson Township Supervisor and Vice Chair of the Board

Email: pbuckland@twp.ferguson.pa.us

[1] I work at Penn State’s Sustainability Institute. This letter should in no way indicate any position held by the Sustainability Institute nor its staff.

“In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; and we will understand only what we are taught.” Baba Dioum

]]>https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/my-letter-to-penn-states-board-of-trustees-about-our-citizens-our-land-the-cottages/feed/1view of tolls woodlotpeterisintheforestThe State College Borough Water Authority staff and board are comfortable with the Cottages.https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/the-state-college-borough-water-authority-staff-and-board-are-comfortable-with-the-cottages/
https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/the-state-college-borough-water-authority-staff-and-board-are-comfortable-with-the-cottages/#respondTue, 01 Aug 2017 20:15:00 +0000http://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/?p=9300More The State College Borough Water Authority staff and board are comfortable with the Cottages.]]>The State College Borough Water Authority has released a statement on the proposed Toll Brother development. At the Ferguson Township board’s first meeting in July I asked Steven Jackson, the Ferguson liaison to the State College Borough Water Authority, to request that the authority address the issue of risk from the Cottages development. Two weeks ago I reissued that request in person to the SCBWA board at their monthly meeting. This followed a May Spring Creek Watershed Commission meeting where I asked SCBWA’s consulting hydrogeologist Dave Yoxtheimer whether the development presented an imminent risk to the water. He said it was not. But between then and now, the Commonwealth Court overturned a lower court ruling, the Whitehall Road encampment started, rumors of the Toll Brothers hunting for hydrogeologists to do studies had seeped into the public, and there was a lot of whispering around the corner. I thought it prudent to ask directly, as Ferguson Township supervisor Janet Whitaker had done two years ago, for a clarifying statement from the SCBWA.

They obliged yesterday:

SCBWA Position On Springton Point Updated July 31, 2017 – 3:34pm

The State College Borough Water Authority would like to reiterate and clarify our position on the proposed Toll Brothers development along Whitehall Road. The Authority’s role is not to support, approve, or deny land development projects. We do not have the legal standing to make land use, planning, or zoning decisions. However, the Authority is always willing to participate in these discussions during the development stages. Our mission is to provide clean, safe water.

When the Toll Brothers development was first proposed, the Authority was not asked to participate in the review process, as it was not our role. As the review process moved forward, Ferguson Township as well as the public requested that the Authority review the proposed development. Through this review process, the Authority staff and consultants prepared a list of items that we thought should be addressed. Over the course of the review process, 27 items of concern were brought to the attention of the developers and the township. These items included: obtaining local geophysical information necessary for planning, design, placement, and construction of retention and infiltration ponds; establishing a no-blasting policy; limiting the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides; and provisions for the Authority to participate in construction and post-construction monitoring. Geotechnical and engineering services were provided to Ferguson Township and Toll Brothers at a cost of approximately $50,000 to the Authority. The developer and the township have included all of these requests in their plans. As a result, the Authority staff and board are comfortable with the development as planned and believe that risk to the source water has been reduced.

My feelings on the SCBWA’s statement are immaterial. It doesn’t matter if I like what they said or if it makes me feel good or not. This isn’t an issue of wanting them to say there are imminent water risks (though it would be really convenient for stopping the development). They have supplied the community and me with exactly what I had asked for: a statement regarding their view of the risks. As they say, they “are comfortable with the development as planned and believe that risk to the source water has been reduced.”

None of this means that the SCBWA likes the development, that they want development encroaching nearer to Zone 1 of the Thomas and Harter wells, or anything else. It simply sets aside the idea that the SCBWA really thinks that the Cottages are bad for water and that they are waiting to speak out against it. It doesn’t surprise me either as I’ve written before. My discussions with hydrogeologists and other experts in the area have informed my judgment that the Cottages don’t present an imminent threat to our wells*. But I still fully believe that the problem is longer-term as the hydra of development eats away at farms and wood lots as developers chase the white whale and try to get us to be their crew. No thanks.

*NOTE: You can backtrack through my statements on “Toll Brothers” to see how my position has gone from alarmed about water to concerned but even more alarmed about pressure on the growth boundary and the preservation of high-quality land.

]]>https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/the-state-college-borough-water-authority-staff-and-board-are-comfortable-with-the-cottages/feed/0UntitledpeterisintheforestAt some point, we all live downstream from fracking.https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/at-some-point-we-all-live-downstream-from-fracking/
https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/at-some-point-we-all-live-downstream-from-fracking/#respondTue, 18 Jul 2017 20:05:06 +0000http://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/?p=8799More At some point, we all live downstream from fracking.]]>When I worked at Kiski, some folks on campus were concerned about the fracking that was happening around us, especially because there were fracking wells around the reservoir nearby. They had good reason to be worried. There were some recorded spills and a handful of citations. Now if you know anything about the gas industry and the DEP, you know that they’ve been close to peas in a pod, sharing a bromance created when the gas industry fracked the legislature and the governor’s office as it started fracking the Commonwealth. There was probably more to worry about at that reservoir and, well, plenty of places.
Citizens united with me on Memorial Day 2014 to protest former Governor Tom Corbett (R) opening up state park to fracking. The announcement came right before the weekend. Our water and the land of the Commonwealth is ours to cherish and protect. Picture by Steven Rubin. http://www.stevenrubin.com/

In another direction, upstream of the confluence of the Conemaugh River and Loyalhanna that forms the river giving the Kiskiminetas Springs School its name, lies the Conemaugh Dam. Sediment accumulates behind it. What’s in that sediment?

Some of my peers over in Civil and Environmental Engineering (I’m at Penn State’s Sustainability Institute) have found something really frightening. Working with researchers at Colorado State University, they “looked for high radioactivity signatures and measured the pore water and the radioisotopes to determine the age of the sediments. They determined that “[l]arge quantities of oil and gas wastewater with high loads of chloride, barium, strontium, radium and organic compounds left high concentrations in the sediments and pore water.” As troubling, they also found “endocrine disrupting chemicals (nonylphenol ethoxylates) and carcinogens (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). The highest concentrations coincided with sediment layers deposited five to 10 years ago, during the peak of Marcellus Shale activity.”

Me, a Bernie Sanders delegate, at the Democratic National Convention during the showing of a climate change film by James Cameron.

As Bill Burgos said, “The isotopes confirm these are unconventional oil and gas wastes.” Some isotopes of barium and strontium have signatures known to be unique to the Marcellus Shale. Though fracking waste water has passed through treatment plants, the concentrations of dangerous materials is up to 200 times higher downstream of the plants compared to upstream. Levels have dropped since the voluntary decision not to “treat” frack water this way, but we don’t know the long-term impacts.

They could be severe. “It’s kind of an unknown, unquantified risk,” Burgos said. “The thing that you don’t know is the synergistic effect of all of these things together, the combined effect of radium and lead and surfactants and salt, all together. Does the combined effect of those things ratchet up the toxicity?”

Any sensible approach to this industry would curtail it greatly. It would stop this experiment on people in the name of power and move to a sustainable energy future. And it would keep my friends at Kiski, the boys who make their pilgrimage to the rope swing, and the kids from Apollo who play in that river safer.

In the last week and a half, I’ve received dozens of emails about Pennypacker v. Ferguson Township. Ferguson and Centre Region citizens concerned about the short- and long-term impacts on our region from the Cottages luxury housing development want the highest court in Pennsylvania to rule on whether the former board violated zoning law. As I’ve written here previously, the Toll Brothers proposed development has been a mess. Citizens are right that the Supreme Court could clarify things by hearing the case. Will they? Who knows? The case has taken twists and turns and the board, to some citizens’ considerable disappointment did not file the answer many asked for. More on that below.

Draft of the Ferguson Township Sourcewater Protection Map. The proposed Cottages development (marked with a star) would be located about a mile and a half east of the Thomas-Harter Wells along the border of Harris and College Townships.

Some township and regional residents filed a lawsuit against Ferguson Township in December 2015. Plaintiffs argued that the final land development plan was unlawful because there is “no basis for deviating from the general rule that accessory uses must be considered with the principal uses they serve and that the [planned residential development]-related … facilities here are not allowed under the township zoning ordinance.” In slightly clearer speech: zoned agricultural land can’t legally be converted into stormwater infrastructure for a development in another zoning district. The developers never applied for a variance but were granted the go-ahead by the sitting board. That, the plaintiffs argued, was an end run around the law. Judge Grine ruled in their favor in July 2016.

Springton Pointe then filed an appeal to the Commonwealth Court. They argued that the lower court was wrong because citizens hadn’t intervened at the time of tentative plan approval. The Commonwealth Court agreed and ordered the lower court’s ruling be vacated, giving the Toll Brothers the go ahead. But the plaintiffs have filed an answer to that ruling with the state’s Supreme Court and Springton Pointe has filed a countering answer. Will the Supreme Court hear the case? The wait begins.

Now citizens have written to my fellow supervisors and me, asking that we file an answer. They are asking us to intervene and request clarity on the zoning issue. They argue that the ruling puts the township in potential liability no matter our decision. If the board were to tell a developer that they cannot place stormwater infrastructure in adjacent agricultural land when we have allowed it before without a variance, could we be taken to court? If we allow such infrastructure again, will citizens sue us for violating zoning law? Or, if the Commonwealth Court’s ruling stands, can it be read as completely vacating the lower court ruling and thereby setting a precedent based on technical procedures and timelines instead of the letter and intent of zoning law? Will we have to modify our zoning to explicitly prohibit such uses? These are real binds. The Supreme Court could settle it one way or another and set statewide precedent. Alternately we can try to fix with a patch later, one that won’t apply across the commonwealth.

But there are two other practical and ethical issues of significance: one of recognition and procedural justice and one of the distribution of risks and benefits. The Commonwealth Court ruled in a way that places a burden on citizens that is very difficult to overcome. Springton Pointe has an army of lawyers with thousands upon thousands of hours of training and experience that is backed by a war chest of money. That gives them a de facto advantage to access and be recognized by municipal staffs and boards. It also enables them to run over the public and manipulate procedures to their advantage. The democratically-elected governments and their appointees are outgunned by design. The system is rigged in the favor of the developer who’s private interests buy people’s time to occupy the time and efforts of local government.

As Orwell might have observed, the legal and political framework makes a corporation more equal than real people. The design makes it easy for developers to capture boards and commissions. As Stephen Hempel writes, that can easily lead to “actions and inactions feed[ing] a forest where private interest trees grow tall, while the public’s needs stay small.” As Steven Biko said, “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” With the mind of the government occupied by the developer, it can easily do its will. Citizens can hardly hope to keep up with such an apparatus. So it’s not just a de facto issue, it’s de jure as well through lots of access around planning.

This is a system where justice can be abused too easily. How are citizens to redress their concerns if their elected officials don’t do what’s right in the first place? Citizens unacquainted with the ins and outs of Byzantine land law have few options available to them: they have fifteen pawns and a queen lawyer (if they’re lucky) they have to hire onto the chessboard. Meanwhile a Fortune 500 company has a full suite of sixteen pieces. The Commonwealth Court’s decision simply shows how rigged the system is in favor of wealthy and distant interests. It grants corporations more recognition, more access to procedures, and more benefits and fewer harms. And here we are talking about a real estate corporation. Imagine fighting a gas pipeline with the power of eminent domain behind it.

And in a municipality with a Community and Environmental Bill of Rights that doesn’t recognize corporate personhood, all of this is doubly troubling. Our Home Rule Charter states, “corporate entities and their directors and managers shall not enjoy special privileges or powers under the law which make community majorities subordinate to them.” In principle, our township stands at odds with the status quo.

Private gain on the backs of the public raises an issue of risks and rewards. On use, the proposed Cottages will encroach on land best kept as open space and in agriculture. It has value in food production and soil, as habitat, and for the services it provides in water filtration. Agricultural production clearly comes with risks of its own, but they are manageable. They will not grow under any scenarios I know of. The same can’t be said of sprawl.

There also the long-term land and water impacts. While hydrogeological experts have assured me that this development is very unlikely to harm the Harter and Thomas wells, there’s also agreement that continuing to convert land into impervious surface gets us closer to tipping points that will be socially, economically, and environmentally costly. That burden will inevitably be placed on the backs of rate payers, not the developer. They will argue that we now have a monitoring well by the development. That’s nice insofar as it’s a good thing to do. But for whose advantage at this point? Theirs. They’ve greenwashed the whole thing and will take the green home.

The Cottages would bring more banal cookie-cutter housing. It would make a beautiful view ugly and boring. The residents’ peace of mind comes from that view. Yes, there are other housing developments and a church nearby. But we need limits that align with our values. What is the value of red-winged blackbirds lighting across the fields, sunlight pouring onto a rolling field, or that primal joy of walking along a woodlot and hearing the rustle of maple and oak leaves? No person in love with this world can seriously argue that black top, crummy roofing, and more traffic is of high value. Only a cynical greedy developer can believe that. Why does our law entitle them to foist their ugliness on us?

This photograph is courtesy of the Centre Daily Times. It shows the view of the rolling farmland, a woodlot along the Musser Gap Greenway, and Tussey Mountain veiled in clouds in the background. Most of the view in this picture would become the proposed student housing development.

It’s the kind of housing that dumps more money into the pockets of distant shareholders while putting students more into debt. “But we will be providing taxes to you,” they say. Ah yes. That wonderful student tax base that pays so much into the long-term care of our community.

Don’t get me wrong, I work at Penn State and I work with incredible students. My peers across the university and many of the administrators I know are good, well-intentioned, and community-minded people. I don’t blame them much more than I can blame myself. As Wendell Berry says, we live in a system of waste. We live in a system whose dominant mindset runs on a treadmill of empty consumption, debt, cheap design, and the pitting of corporate interests against the beauty and integrity of our home, the land, and leaves all its excrement for someone else to clean up.

No. I blame people who should know better. I blame people whose decisions have profound impacts on our community but push up their bottom lines. I blame people who’ve decided that greed is a human right, that the costs are someone else’s to bear, and that the exploitation of communities and land is the way to “get ahead.” I blame people who’ve decided that the commons should be damned and the great men (and maybe women) of an Ayn Rand like corporatopia should forge the architecture of the good. Like Ahab, they use rational means to navigate to a wicked end. They’re driving the ship so they can harpoon the white whale.

Judge Grine’s lower court ruling could have halted that pursuit. He ruled that the previous Ferguson Board “committed an error of law by approving the final PRD plan.” Zoned agricultural land should not be turned into stormwater infrastructure for projects outside of that district. I believe the law was clear on this matter and the previous board erred. I say erred because, unlike some activists, I don’t see strong evidence of “collusion” as some have said. There’s plenty of evidence in plain sight showing that people made bad decisions rooted in what they thought were good intentions. But as the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

That leads me back to requests from citizens to file an answer that would ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. We held an executive session last week on this matter. I cannot discuss the particulars of legal decision-making on the part of the board. The board filed a letter that stated we have no position. I personally am not pleased, but it was the board’s decision to make and not one that any of us took lightly at all.

The Supreme Court will have to decide if it will hear the case. I, myself, hope they do. Ferguson’s people deserve rational means to achieve a good end.

]]>https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/07/04/all-my-means-are-sane-my-motive-and-object-mad-pennypacker-v-ferguson-township/feed/0SOURCEWATER MAPpeterisintheforestSOURCEWATER MAPsome_animals_are_more_equal_than_others__by_gasketfuse-d5bq5r118952851_1286809068107431_8599286868003890304_nFerguson Township, it’s time to make a Climate Action Planhttps://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/ferguson-township-its-time-to-make-a-climate-action-plan/
https://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/ferguson-township-its-time-to-make-a-climate-action-plan/#respondFri, 23 Jun 2017 13:50:07 +0000http://peterisintheforest.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/ferguson-township-its-time-to-make-a-climate-action-plan/More Ferguson Township, it’s time to make a Climate Action Plan]]>On Monday, June 19th, the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors passed a resolution “committing the township to developing and implementing a strategy to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emission no later than 2050; to become a leader in the region and commonwealth in pursuing goals established by said strategy; and to engage other stakeholders in a dialogue to develop courses of action to reduce the impact of human-induced climate change to Pennsylvania and people and places around the world.” We have a lot of exciting work to do. We’ve already started on some of it.

In the year and a half since I’ve been in office, we’ve already done things that align with a long-term climate action plan. From water, land, and energy angles, our township has been thinking ahead to both adapt to climate change and mitigate it to ensure a safe, beautiful, and thriving township. These include our stormwater ordinance to deal with increased storm intensity and our electricity contract moving to zero carbon sources. In process right now we have an assessment of township property for solar photovoltaic development, including traffic lights, as well as the design of a high-performance public works building, and ongoing work on our source water protection overlay district. These are the starts, pieces of a puzzle for which we don’t have the complete picture.

Now we have to get serious and make a plan. The board will have to establish some processes to take this on. However we do it, we have to be “transparent, fair, and economically responsible.” Let’s get to work.

Tonight, the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors will vote on a truly ambitious climate resolution. We are voting to “develop a strategy to achieve net zero GHG emissions as quickly as feasible, but no later than 2050. Doing so will make us lead by example and engage our peer governments and act “to reduce the impacts and embrace the opportunities created by human-induced warming to Pennsylvania and places around the world.”

Why now? The short answer is that people and the lives of our earthly cohabitants are at risk. But with great risks come great rewards when we do the right thing. Why here? Because while we are part of the problem, we also our greatest hope.

We know that by burning fossil fuels, people have warmed the planet by wrapping it in a thicker blanket of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We have already warmed the planet over 1 degree Celsius and it’s rising. We are facing serious human rights challenges and ecological instability issues as we transgress the planetary boundary of the greenhouse effect. People and ecosystems the world over–particularly the world’s poor and indigenous people as well as fragile ecosystems in the Arctic and ocean reefs–are under threat. About 200 million people are at risk from sea level rise of a couple of meters, not to mention additional problems caused by more intense heat, increased storm intensity, floods, droughts, and changing disease patterns as pests migrate. Lest you think those effects are far away in space and time, they are already impacting Pennsylvania’s agriculture, health, recreation, and water sectors.

Donald Trump has said that he’d “cancel” the Paris Agreement. We won’t know until June if he’s going to carry out his promise, whatever it means. But let’s be clear. This is a colossally foolish idea. There’s too much at risk. It’s also impossible. China, India, the EU, and a host of developing nations are taking climate change seriously and are working to follow through on their commitments. How? Primarily by investing in clean and renewable energy.

And you know what? We can do the same. We in local government can live up to the obligations we have to ourselves, to our children and grandchildren, to Pennsylvanians and the nation, and to people and other creatures across the world. We the people have power to take bold climate action. It is time to make strategies while our so-called leaders founder in bickering and manufactured controversies.

As you may know, I’m a supervisor in Ferguson Township, Pennsylvania. In the last year, we adopted a strategic plan that came about from extensive community input. We prioritized smart economic development, environmental stewardship, and the fostering of clean and renewable energy. Given that our community has prioritized these things and our board placed them into a guiding document for the township, it is time that we adopt a resolution that more explicitly recognizes the need for us to act on climate change.

On Monday, we will vote to do just that. I’ve proposed a Ferguson Township Climate Action Resolution that calls for us to make a plan that sets a goal that meets our fair share of commitments to limit warming under the Paris Agreement in a way that is fair, transparent, and economically prudent.

Will you come out and support the resolution at the township meeting? The meeting starts at 7 pm on Monday May 15th in the Ferguson Township Municipal Building.

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON, CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTING THE TOWNSHIP TO DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE NET ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS NO LATER THAN 2050; TO BECOME A LEADER IN THE REGION AND COMMONWEALTH IN PURSUING GOALS ESTABLISHED BY SAID STRATEGY; AND TO ENGAGE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN A DIALOGUE TO DEVELOP COURSES OF ACTION TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE TO PENNSYLVANIA AND PEOPLE AND PLACES AROUND THE WORLD.

Whereas,the international community agreed in Paris to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in order to prevent catastrophic harm to people and ecological systems on which life depends; and

Whereas, the United Nations Environment Program’s 2016 “Bridge the Gap Reports” concluded that, in order to have a 50% change of limiting warming to 1.5°C, global carbon dioxide emissions from all nations must be net zero between 2045 and 2050, and to have a 66% chance of limiting warming to 2°C, carbon dioxide emissions from all sources must be net zero between 2060 and 2075. Moreover, to achieve these warming limits, many of the scenarios in the relevant literature that successfully limit warming to below 2°C assume that the use of negative emissions technologies is necessary; and

Whereas, both the magnitude and speed needed to achieve these reductions necessary to prevent dangerous human-induced warming urgently requires all local government entities to cooperate with other levels of government, the private sector, educational institutions, agriculture, and others to rapidly develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to net zero to achieve the Paris Agreement’s warming limit goals; and

Whereas, any delay in reducing GHG emissions makes the Paris Agreement’s warming limit goals much more difficult, if not impossible to achieve, as existing GHG emissions levels are rapidly reducing the shrinking carbon budgets that must constrain total global GHG emissions to achieve said goals; and

Whereas, a growing number of local government entities and private and public sector organizations around the world have committed to begin planning to reduce their GHG emissions to net zero as quickly as possible but no later than 2050 or, at minimum, achieve 100% non-fossil fuel generated electricity by that date; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Article 1, Section 27 guarantees that, “The people have a right to the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of the all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustees of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people;” and

Whereas, Pennsylvania contributes approximately 1% of global GHG emissions, which, according to the Commonwealth’s Third Pennsylvania Climate Impacts Assessment Report, is affecting agriculture, energy, human health, infrastructure, recreation, water quality, forests, and other ecosystems in Pennsylvania, and human health and ecological systems around the world. Despite this, neither the Pennsylvania state government nor the clear majority of Pennsylvania local governments have established a GHG emissions strategy designed to achieve a GHG reduction target consistent with the urgent need to prevent very dangerous climate change; and

Whereas, green building practices and standards, and the cost of non-fossil fuel generated energy including solar and wind power have reduced to the point that the replacement of fossil-fuel generated energy with renewable energy is reaching price parity with non-renewable energy; and

Whereas, green building and renewable energy industries employ thousands of Pennsylvanians; and

Whereas, agriculture and forestry have played important roles in Ferguson Township’s economy and culture for generations, and are integral in sinking carbon, providing additional ecosystem services, beauty, and recreation, as well as afford a high quality of life for people and our environment; and

Whereas, universities in Pennsylvania, including Penn State University provide jobs that research, support, and educate Pennsylvania’s renewable energy industry and conduct international, national, state-level, and local climate assessments and planning assistance; and

Whereas, Ferguson Township is a Home Rule Municipality whose governing Charter includes a Community and Environmental Bill of Rights guaranteeing a sustainable energy future.

Now, therefore, be it here resolved:

a) Immediately begin to develop a strategy to achieve net zero GHG emissions as quickly as feasible, but no later than 2050, and b) to commit to achieving the GHG emissions reductions target determined by said strategy and by the date identified therein;

Lead by example to rapidly pursue these goals in a manner that is transparent, fair, and economically responsible; and

Engage peer governments, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and Penn State University to raise awareness and identify courses of action to reduce the impacts and embrace the opportunities created by human-induced warming to Pennsylvania and places around the world.

RESOLVED this ___ day of ______, 2017.

***

I’d like to thank one my mentors, Donald Brown of Widener University and author of Climate Change Ethics: Navigating a Perfect Moral Storm for his leadership in authoring much of the language in the resolution. I’d also like to thank members of the Pennsylvania Environmental Resource Consortium, the Center for Ethics and Environmental Law, PennFuture, PennEnvironment, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club Pennsylvania, Interfaith Power and Light, FrackTracker, and other individuals for their assistance in crafting and revising some of the language with us and for agreeing to provide assistance to municipalities going forward. Ferguson Township staff revised and formatted the Resolution as it is written.